Live support chatGroundwater Sampling and Monitoring with Direct Push Technologies
Credit: 4 PDH
Subject Matter Expert: Mark Knarr, P.E., CDT, CEM, LEED AP BD+C, PMP, CCEA, GPCP
In Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring with Direct Push Technologies, you'll learn ...
- DPT vs. conventional wells: pros and cons
- Point-in-time samplers
- DPT monitoring wells
- Specialized measurement and logging tools, Sources of sample bias, such as turbidity
Overview
Preview a portion of this course before purchasing it.
Credit: 4 PDH
Length: 65 pages
EPA confirmed nearly 3,000 new releases from underground storage tanks (USTs) during fiscal year 2010, bringing the cumulative total to 491,572 releases since 1984. Although progress has been made in cleaning these sites, over 96,000 of them still require remedial action. (Source: Semi-annual Report of UST Performance Measures, Mid Fiscal Year 2010, 3/31/2010.). These UST leaks pose a grave threat to human health and the environment by contaminating groundwater and soil. Consequently, detection of these contaminants in the subsurface is a crucial first-step toward protecting human health.
Despite ongoing reliance on traditional monitoring wells for in-situ measurement of soil and groundwater properties, direct push technology (DPT) offers a viable alternative for the same purpose. DPT refers to a growing family of tools used for performing subsurface investigations by driving, pushing, and/or vibrating small-diameter hollow steel rods into the ground. By attaching sampling tools to the end of the steel rods they can be used to collect soil, soil-gas, and groundwater samples. DPT rods can also be equipped with probes that provide continuous in-situ measurements of subsurface properties. Interest in understanding how DPT groundwater collection methods compare with traditional monitoring well sampling methods has steadily increased since the mid-1980s when DPT first started being used. Although environmental professionals recognize that DPT provide a cost-effective alternative to conventional approaches to subsurface sampling, some have been reluctant to use it for groundwater sampling because of uncertainty regarding the quality of samples that the technology can provide.
This course is intended for environmental engineers who are involved in site remediation, especially site characterization and monitoring.
Specific Knowledge or Skill Obtained
This course teaches the following specific knowledge and skills:
- DPT vs. conventional wells: pros and cons
- Point-in-time samplers
- DPT monitoring wells
- Specialized measurement and logging tools, Sources of sample bias, such as turbidity
- Recommended methods for sample collection to minimize bias and contamination
- Sealing wells as a component of decommissioning
Certificate of Completion
You will be able to immediately print a certificate of completion after passing a multiple-choice quiz consisting of 20 questions. PDH credits are not awarded until the course is completed and quiz is passed.
| This course is applicable to professional engineers in: | ||
| Alabama (P.E.) | Alaska (P.E.) | Arkansas (P.E.) |
| Delaware (P.E.) | District of Columbia (P.E.) | Florida (P.E. Area of Practice) |
| Georgia (P.E.) | Idaho (P.E.) | Illinois (P.E.) |
| Illinois (S.E.) | Indiana (P.E.) | Iowa (P.E.) |
| Kansas (P.E.) | Kentucky (P.E.) | Louisiana (P.E.) |
| Maine (P.E.) | Maryland (P.E.) | Michigan (P.E.) |
| Minnesota (P.E.) | Mississippi (P.E.) | Missouri (P.E.) |
| Montana (P.E.) | Nebraska (P.E.) | Nevada (P.E.) |
| New Hampshire (P.E.) | New Jersey (P.E.) | New Mexico (P.E.) |
| New York (P.E.) | North Carolina (P.E.) | North Dakota (P.E.) |
| Ohio (P.E. Self-Paced) | Oklahoma (P.E.) | Oregon (P.E.) |
| Pennsylvania (P.E.) | South Carolina (P.E.) | South Dakota (P.E.) |
| Tennessee (P.E.) | Texas (P.E.) | Utah (P.E.) |
| Vermont (P.E.) | Virginia (P.E.) | West Virginia (P.E.) |
| Wisconsin (P.E.) | Wyoming (P.E.) | |
Preview a portion of this course before purchasing it.
Credit: 4 PDH
Length: 65 pages
